1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
|
Return-Path: <gcbd-bitcoin-development-2@m.gmane.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41616B1E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:00:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from blaine.gmane.org (unknown [195.159.176.226])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9B3A212
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:00:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development-2@m.gmane.org>)
id 1dMz5p-0005sU-T6 for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org;
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:59:57 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:59:57 +0200
Message-ID: <oi8sdn$ksl$1@blaine.gmane.org>
References: <CAO3Pvs8ccTkgrecJG6KFbBW+9moHF-FTU+4qNfayeE3hM9uRrg@mail.gmail.com>
<oi8e8k$g56$1@blaine.gmane.org>
<537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu>
<55482016.LADLl5KXAH@strawberry>
<4052F361-966C-4817-9779-146D4B43D1FE@jonasschnelli.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.1.1
In-Reply-To: <4052F361-966C-4817-9779-146D4B43D1FE@jonasschnelli.ch>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_ALL,
FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Compact Client Side Filtering for
Light Clients
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:00:08 -0000
On 06/19/2017 05:49 PM, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>> It's been debated if [filtering of] unconfirmed transactions are
>>> necessary,
>>
>> Why would it not be needed? Any SPV client (when used as a payment-receiver)
>> requires this from a simple usability point of view.
>
>
> I think many users would be willing ...
> a) … to trade higher privacy (using client side filtering) for not having the „incoming transaction“ feature
> b) – if they want 0-conf – to fetch all inved transactions
Another number: I'm answering dozens of support inquiries about
delayed/missing transactions per day. Over the 7 years of Bitcoin
Wallet's existence, I estimate about 50000 inquiries.
On the other hand, I remember only 1 (one) inquiry about the privacy
problems of BIP37 (or privacy at all).
From a regular user's point of view, privacy is non-issue. Sure,
everyone would take it for free, but certainly not if it a) delays
incoming payments or b) quickly eats up your traffic quota.
|
